Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute
On 5 February 2013, Foreign Policy published a report by Pete Hunt on editing of the Wikipedia articles on the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. The uninhabited islands are under the control of Japan, but China and Taiwan are asserting rival territorial claims. Tensions have risen of late—and not just in the waters surrounding the actual islands:
| “ | In recent years, partisans have taken the fight to Wikipedia, where articles about the islands have been subject to weekly "edit wars" between contributors. The content on these pages might seem to be of only marginal importance compared to more significant coverage in other outlets. But the "Senkaku Islands" and "Senkaku Islands dispute" Wikipedia articles are the two most prominent English-language sources of information about the islands on the Internet, with the top search result ranking on Google and thousands of page views every month. The Japanese and Chinese language editions of Wikipedia have their own article pages for the islands as well—each offering different chronologies of ownership. These sites, however, receive far less traffic and the content debates are far more diplomatic. | ” |
As the Foreign Policy article reports, the talk page of the Senkaku Islands article is replete with accusations of bias and censorship, with each side claiming to uphold Wikipedia policy—conduct which, Hunt says, mirrors that of Japanese and Chinese officials citing international law to back up their claims and counterclaims.
The growth of the on-wiki dispute paralleled that of the real-world conflict. Created in 2003, by User:Menchi, the Senkaku Islands article originally gave preference to the traditional Chinese name in its lead sentence, with the Japanese name mentioned second, and it was short, at just 300 words. By January 2010, it had grown to more than ten times that size, with 43 sources cited. In October 2010, User:Tenmei created a standalone article on the conflict.
As the political conflict around the islands intensified, so did the conflict at the Wikipedia article. The first point of contention was the islands' very name—should it be Diaoyutai Islands (the Taiwanese name), Diaoyu Islands (preferred in China), or the Japanese name, Senkaku Islands. Some editors advocated using the English name, Pinnacle Islands, to avoid the appearance of bias, but as Hunt reports:
| “ | This attempt at a compromise was quickly shot down, even as the talk page rhetoric heated up. "These pro-Japanese editors just a bunch of bully boys and hooligans!" an editor named STSC vented. | ” |
The second area of dispute was the question who owned the islands, and over time, the article grew to describe, "in long, excessively detailed sections", on which basis three different governments came to argue that the islands were rightfully theirs.
The third point of contention, Hunt says, has been editorial neutrality, with editors using the supposed nationality of their opposite numbers as a focus for attacks. But in the end, Hunt concludes, the unappealing, time-consuming and emotionally exhausting process delivers a result:
| “ | Regular editing dust-ups might suggest that the Senkaku Islands article and its "dispute" offshoot are dubious resources of little value. In fact, both articles nicely summarize the controversy and provide a long list of citations and references that can advance further research. While news accounts of the islands focus on recent diplomatic incidents and their international implications, these Wikipedia articles provide historical context and a more detailed explanation of the arguments underlying each side's claims to the territory. The vitriol exchanged by editors might be ugly, but it's also evidence of a transparent and ongoing screening process. | ” |
Hunt ends with the suggestion that for this and similar political disputes, Wikipedia forms what he calls a "kinetic diplomatic front":
| “ | As the standoff over the Senkaku Islands escalates, Wikipedia will continue to be a kinetic diplomatic front. The pages' high profile and the subject's newsworthiness forces embattled editors to revisit and relitigate the same name and legal status battles again and again against new challengers. Whether voluntary cooperation and third-party mediation is enough to contain the crisis—editing or otherwise—remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that a large Web audience increasingly perceives Wikipedia as the encyclopedia of record where history is documented and judged. | ” |